DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s response to Office action was received on November 25, 2025.
In response to Applicant’s amendment of the claims, all of the claim objections, from the previous Office action, are hereby withdrawn.
Regarding the 112, written description requirement, rejections from the previous Office action, Applicant argues that claim 21 has support in paragraph [0021] of the patent application publication for this Office action. This paragraph states:
Using the load profile, shipper profile, and carrier profile, the system looks to recommend jobs to a carrier by first filtering available loads based on aspects of the load and the location of the carrier. Non-limiting data which can result in loads building filtered can include equipment type, pickup date, pickup location (which can be provided manually or via relay from a GPS (Global Positioning System) receiver), and/or deadhead distance. In some configurations, the system can also recommend carriers to a supplier. For example, the system can use a GPS (Global Positioning System) of the carrier to determine the carrier's transport is currently located in New Mexico while a given load is in Florida. The system can execute a deadhead calculation, calculating how far the carrier would move without a load, and based on that distance filter out some of the available loads. The load filter can use ad hoc inputs provided by the user, or use system defaults if no inputs are provided. For example, if a user wants loads that weigh less than 15 k lbs (6803.88 kg), this can be one possible option/ad hoc input which the user can select. The algorithm can take such ad hoc inputs into account when filtering available loads.
However, in response, claim 21 does not simply recite filtering loads using GPS data of the transport vehicle. The first paragraph of the body of claim 21 recites: “the location coordinates are a current location of the transport vehicle, the location coordinates provided by a Global Positioning System (GPS) device”. The second paragraph of the body of claim 21 then recites: “the load recommendation algorithm uses the location coordinates provided by the GPS device as inputs while performing the content filtering and the collaborative filtering”. Note that the load recommendation algorithm represents a particular step in Applicant’s procedure. For example, see independent claim 1, from which claim 21 depends. In the third step of the body of claim 1, there is filtering of the list of available loads based at least in part on the location coordinates, resulting in filtered loads. Later, in the fifth step of claim 1, there is executing a load recommendation algorithm using the filtered loads, the at least one carrier profile, and the at least one shipper profile as inputs. So the load recommendation algorithm is considered to be part of a different step from the filtering step that uses location coordinates. This is further supported by the fact that the load recommendation algorithm is described as using the “filtered loads”, with “filtered loads” being the result of the filtering step.
Now, taking a closer look at Applicant’s patent application publication, paragraph [0021], argued by Applicant and quoted above, if we continue to review Applicant’s patent application publication, we see that paragraph [0021] appears to be part of a description of an example, which begins at paragraph [0018]. Paragraph [0018] states: “Consider the following example” and then describes the system receiving a load profile. Paragraph [0019] describes the system receiving a shipper profile and a carrier profile. Paragraph [0020] decribes the carrier profile. We then reach the paragraph [0021] argued as support by Applicant. Paragraph [0021] begins with: “Using the load profile, shipper profile, and carrier profile, the system looks to recommend jobs to a carrier by first filtering available loads based on aspects of the load and the location of the carrier.” Note the use of the word “filtering” here, as well as the language of “by first filtering,” which seems to indicate that the filtering precedes other steps. Paragraph [0022] then describes further filtering the remaining, filtered loads. Finally, paragraph [0023] states “The system can then execute a load recommendation algorithm”, and the paragraph continues with further discussion of the load recommendation algorithm.
Thus, looking at paragraph [0021] in the context of the paragraphs around it, it appears to Examiner that paragraph [0021] is describing using GPS location data in the “filtering” step (like the third step of the body of Applicant’s claim 1), which is a different step from the later step using the load recommendation algorithm (like the fifth step of the body of Applicant’s claim 1). Applicant’s claim 21 describes the GPS location data being used in the load recommendation algorithm. Therefore, Examiner does not find paragraph [0021] to support the GPS location data being used in the load recommendation algorithm in Applicant’s claim 21.
In response to Applicant’s amendment of the claims, all of the indefiniteness claim rejections, from the previous Office action, are hereby withdrawn.
In response to Applicant’s amendment of the claims, the corresponding 101 claim rejections, from the previous Office action, have been correspondingly amended, below in this Office action.
Regarding the 101 claim rejections, Applicant first argues that Examiner’s 101 rejections do not provide sufficient reasoning to support that the abstract-idea elements fall within the abstract-idea category of “certain method(s) of organizing human activity”. Examiner disagrees. For this response, Examiner is using the updated version of the 101 rejections, from below in this Office action, which is reasonably similar to the previous version that Applicant has argued against.
The abstract-idea portion of the independent-claim analysis is presented at the start of the rejections, so Examiner will reprint that portion immediately below:
As per Claim(s) 1, 9, and 17, Claim(s) 1, 9, and 17 recite(s):
- receiving location coordinates for a transport vehicle;
- receiving, from a load board posted, a list of available loads which can be transported by the transport vehicle as a backhaul after delivering a first load, the load board containing timing information requirements associated with each load in the list of available loads;
- filtering the list of available loads based at least in part on the location coordinates, resulting in filtered loads;
- receiving at least one carrier profile and at least one shipper profile, the at least one carrier profile comprising a preferred pick-up location for the transport vehicle, a preferred drop-off location for the transport vehicle, and a preferred route between the preferred pick-up location and the preferred drop-off location;
- executing a load recommendation algorithm using the filtered loads, the at least one carrier profile, and the at least one shipper profile as inputs, resulting in at least one load recommendation score for at least one load within the filtered loads, the at least one load capable of pickup and delivery by the transport vehicle within the timing information requirements provided by the load board;
- wherein the load recommendation algorithm further comprises: content filtering, the content further filtering the list of filtered loads based on at least one of equipment or date range;
- collaborative filtering, the collaborative filtering further filtering the list of filtered loads based on previous behavior of a carrier to a previous load similar to a filtered load in the list of filtered loads;
- wherein similarity is determined by having at least one of a particular load type, a particular lane, or a particular supplier identical to a previous load;
- multi-object optimization, the multi-object optimization identifying dominance of at least one variable over remaining variables by considering trade-offs between conflicting objectives;
- wherein the collaborative filtering and the multi-object optimization are executed in parallel;
- matching the transport vehicle to a selected load within the at least one load.
Each of the above limitations falls within the abstract-idea category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity.” Specifically, those limitations relate to the following subject matter that is grouped into the category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity”:
- commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations): organizes shipping, which is commonly a commercial activity;
- managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions): manages relationships and interactions between carriers and shippers, each of which may involve people.
To the extent that any of these limitations are recited alongside recitations of generic computer components, as described below in this rejection: If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers subject matter recognized as certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite an abstract idea.
Looking at the quotation immediately above, we can break the statement into the following portions: (1) an introduction identifying the independent claims; (2) a list of claim limitations that Examiner determined to be part of the abstract idea; (3) a short paragraph explaining that those limitations are all part of the abstract-idea category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity” and introducing the next portion; (4) a presentation of the subject matter groupings of “certain methods of organizing human activity” which Examiner has determined that the limitations fall into, including supporting reasoning for each such grouping; and (5) an explanation of how any generic computer components are treated.
Examiner disagrees that such explanation is insufficient or conclusory. Examiner has set forth specifically what portions of the claim are being treated as part of the abstract idea, what abstract-idea category they have been determined to fall into, and why. An example of a conclusory statement of an abstract idea would be something along the lines of “the claims recite an abstract idea” or even “the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity”, with nothing more. As described above, this is not the case.
It should also be noted that one can read Examiner’s explanations of the subject matter groupings and then look back at the list of abstract-idea limitations, and observe what Examiner is describing. For example, one stated reason that Examiner determined the claims to recite “certain methods of organizing human activity” is that the limitations fall within the category’s subject-matter grouping of “commercial or legal interactions” because the set of limitations “organizes shipping, which is commonly a commercial activity”. A reader can look at the list of abstract-idea limitations and see that the limitations describe collecting various relevant input data, and performing various data processing functions to result in “matching the transport vehicle to a selected load within the at least one load”. On its face, these functions thus organize shipping, in line with Examiner’s analysis.
Therefore, Examiner does not find this Applicant argument to be persuasive.
Regarding 101, Applicant next argues, using as an example that performing content filtering along with performing collaborative filtering and multi-object optimization in parallel do not fit within any of the subject-matter groupings for “certain methods of organizing human activity” (such as commercial and legal interactions). Examiner disagrees. Consider the portion of claim 1 where these functions are discussed; they are described as part of the load recommendation algorithm. Therefore, they are part of the matching of a vehicle to a load that makes the claim organize shipping (relating to “commercial and legal interactions”), as well as manage relationships and interactions between carriers and shippers (relating to “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people”). To isolate such data processing in the analysis would be like stating that turning a car key has nothing to do with driving a car, simply because it is only a portion of the steps needed to drive the car. Therefore, Examiner does not find this Applicant argument to be persuasive.
Applicant has also added further detail to the multi-object optimization, with the language “by considering trade-offs between conflicting objectives”. However, this further language does not change Examiner’s above analysis about how these particular data processing functions still relate to certain methods of organizing human activity. Therefore, Examiner does not find this Applicant argument to be persuasive.
Novel/Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Examiner has determined that all of Applicant’s claims have overcome having prior art rejections. The reason for this is that Examiner does not believe that, at the time of Applicant’s priority date, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine prior art disclosures to result in the particular combinations of elements/limitations in the claims, including the particular configurations of the elements/limitations with respect to each other in the particular combinations, without the use of impermissible hindsight.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Specifically, as per Claim 21, this newly added claim describes using the location of a transport vehicle from a GPS device to input into the load recommendation algorithm for filtering by two of the algorithm’s filters. Examiner could not find support for this newly added claim in Applicant’s application-as-originally-filed. As part of determining if there were such support, Examiner performed a text-string search of Applicant’s specification for “locat” and “algorithm”. Examiner could find disclosure of use of the transport vehicle’s location to match the vehicle to a load, but not as part of the use of the load recommendation algorithm. The closest disclosure that Examiner found with respect to the subject matter at issue here is in Applicant’s specification-as-originally-filed, paragraph [0034], which states: “As illustrated, the load recommendation algorithm 226 can perform additional content filtering 302 based on the location, equipment, and date range associated with the input loads.” However, note that the location here is that of the load, not the transport vehicle. Therefore, Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, written description requirement.
Claim 22 depends from Claim 21 and incorporates the subject matter at issue via such dependency. Therefore, Claim 22 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, written description requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-10, 14-18, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Claim(s) 1, 9, and 17, Claim(s) 1, 9, and 17 recite(s):
- receiving location coordinates for a transport vehicle;
- receiving, from a load board posted, a list of available loads which can be transported by the transport vehicle as a backhaul after delivering a first load, the load board containing timing information requirements associated with each load in the list of available loads;
- filtering the list of available loads based at least in part on the location coordinates, resulting in filtered loads;
- receiving at least one carrier profile and at least one shipper profile, the at least one carrier profile comprising a preferred pick-up location for the transport vehicle, a preferred drop-off location for the transport vehicle, and a preferred route between the preferred pick-up location and the preferred drop-off location;
- executing a load recommendation algorithm using the filtered loads, the at least one carrier profile, and the at least one shipper profile as inputs, resulting in at least one load recommendation score for at least one load within the filtered loads, the at least one load capable of pickup and delivery by the transport vehicle within the timing information requirements provided by the load board;
- wherein the load recommendation algorithm further comprises: content filtering, the content further filtering the list of filtered loads based on at least one of equipment or date range;
- collaborative filtering, the collaborative filtering further filtering the list of filtered loads based on previous behavior of a carrier to a previous load similar to a filtered load in the list of filtered loads;
- wherein similarity is determined by having at least one of a particular load type, a particular lane, or a particular supplier identical to a previous load;
- multi-object optimization, the multi-object optimization identifying dominance of at least one variable over remaining variables by considering trade-offs between conflicting objectives;
- wherein the collaborative filtering and the multi-object optimization are executed in parallel;
- matching the transport vehicle to a selected load within the at least one load.
Each of the above limitations falls within the abstract-idea category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity.” Specifically, those limitations relate to the following subject matter that is grouped into the category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity”:
- commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations): organizes shipping, which is commonly a commercial activity;
- managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions): manages relationships and interactions between carriers and shippers, each of which may involve people.
To the extent that any of these limitations are recited alongside recitations of generic computer components, as described below in this rejection: If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers subject matter recognized as certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim(s) recite the following additional elements/limitations, each of which are addressed in the list below with the reason(s) why they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
- a computer system; a network; an electric network, at least one processor; a system comprising: at least one processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations; a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored which, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations: These element(s)/limitation(s) amount to mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In making this determination, examiners may consider whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Mere instructions to apply an exception is a consideration with respect to both integration of an abstract idea into a practical application and significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states: “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).” This is the case with these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s). Those elements/limitations do not meaningfully limit the claim because implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Therefore, these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for at least this reason.
- (causing) picking up and delivering the selected load, the picking up and delivery being the backhaul: These element(s)/limitation(s) amount to mere insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). MPEP 2106.05(g) states: “The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity.” These particular element(s)/limitation(s) do not meaningfully limit the claim because the vehicle is simply carrying out the matched job, as would be expected. Therefore, these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for at least this reason.
Examiner presents the following examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity, as relevant to these particular element(s)/limitation(s):
Insignificant application:
Cutting hair after first determining the hair style, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential).
Printing or downloading generated menus, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1854-55 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, either individually or as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of computer-related components amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. As also discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “picking up and delivering the selected load, the picking up and delivery being the backhaul” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not provide an inventive concept.
If an examiner previously concludes under Step 2A that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity, the examiner should evaluate whether that additional element is more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field, in step 2B. Examiner addresses below why that element was well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field:
- (causing) picking up and delivering the selected load, the picking up and delivery being the backhaul: See Hertzberg, US 20230166599 A1, paragraph [0008], which states: “Several strategies are used for increasing the efficiency of transportation of cargo, including online marketplaces wherein for example carriers and shippers provide and request services, ensuring that market mechanisms act to increase the efficiency. A carrier or shipper may thereby plan the route of a cargo vehicle such that the deadhead is minimized, acting to increase the revenue for that particular vehicle.” Thus, “picking up and delivering the selected load, the picking up and delivery being the backhaul” was well-understood, routine, and conventional activity.
The claim(s) are not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim(s) 2, 6-8, 10, 14-16, 18, and 21-22, these claim(s) incorporate the above abstract idea via their dependencies on the respective independent claim(s). The additional element(s)/limitation(s) of the respective independent claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they add significantly more, with respect to those dependent claim(s), under the same reasoning as above with respect to the respective independent claim(s).
Those dependent claim(s) add the following generic computer components, which do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor add significantly more, under the same reasoning as given above with respect to generic computer components in the independent claim(s). Those additional generic computer components and their corresponding dependent claim(s) are as follows:
- additional instructions (claims 10 and 18);
- real-time (Claim 22).
Regarding Claim 21, Claim 21 contains the element/limitation of “the location coordinates are a current location of the transport vehicle, the location coordinates provided by a Global Positioning System (GPS) device”. This element/limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it amounts to mere insignificant extra-solution activity via mere data gathering. Similarly, it does not add significantly more to the abstract idea for the same reason. Berkheimer evidence is required in this situation, which is as follows:
- the location coordinates are a current location of the transport vehicle, the location coordinates provided by a Global Positioning System (GPS) device: See Prabhakaran, US 20020171650 A1, paragraph [0005], which states: “Various navigational systems, including the LORAN system, the Global Positioning System (GPS), and others, have been used to determine the locations of vehicles such as ships, airplanes, trucks, etc. in a fleet, typically in terms of longitude and latitude. By installing mobile navigational systems and mobile transmitter units into such vehicles, fleet operators are able to determine their position within a geographic area and the fleet manager is able to receive updated positions of fleet vehicles.” Thus, “the location coordinates are a current location of the transport vehicle, the location coordinates provided by a Global Positioning System (GPS) device” was well-understood, routine, and conventional activity.
The remaining added elements/limitations of those dependent claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor add significantly more because they all merely add further functional step(s) and/or detail to the abstract idea; as part of the abstract idea, they cannot integrate into a practical application or be significantly more than the abstract idea of which they are a part. For example, claim 6 merely adds further detail to the information about the load.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor add significantly more. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-10, 14-18, and 21-22 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application and is without significantly more.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
a. Arunachalam, US 20210004759 A1 (system and method for monitoring and sharing location and activity of devices);
b. Fu, US 10775182 B2 (methods and apparatus for load and route assignments in a delivery system).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN ERB whose telephone number is (571)272-7606. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 11:30 AM - 8 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, NATHAN UBER can be reached at (571) 270-3923. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
nhe
/NATHAN ERB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628